The NHL initially seemed to make the CBA offer most observers were waiting for: a 50/50 revenue split across the board, ultimately devoid of salary rollbacks and designed to save an 82-game season.

The so-called secondary issues, though, could wind up as primary problems. If nothing else, they'll serve as the main negotiating ground on a proposal that the NHLPA undoubtedly views as a starting point—not a solution.

Gary Bettman told reporters in Toronto on Tuesday the league made its move earlier in the day, as the NHL lockout started its second month.

"It was done in the spirit of getting a deal done," Bettman said.

Bettman said the offer was contingent on an 82-game season that would begin Nov. 2—rather than Oct. 11—and that it'd be on the table for "nine or 10 days." The deadline, according to TSN's Bob McKenzie, is indeed Oct. 26—that would allow for a seven-day training camp and a Nov. 2 start to the schedule. Teams would play about one extra game every five weeks, and the regular season would go deeper into April, with the Stanley Cup finals ultimately extending into late June.

Now, that presupposes that the NHLPA actually accepts the offer, which is far from a sure thing. Ultimately, the viability of the deal comes down to players' feelings on the revenue split—and the owners, obviously, know that, so they're setting the bar on everything else in their own favor.

NHPLA executive director Donald Fehr, speaking after Bettman, said the proposal was for "at least" six years and that he didn't know an offer was coming Tuesday. The union held a 5 p.m. conference call to discuss the offer and planned to meet with the league on Wednesday or Thursday.

"We haven't been able to run any numbers yet much less formulate a response," Fehr said.

The league's offers started with a 43 percent share for players, harsher contracting rules and increased escrow. The union countered with offers that would still net them more than 50 percent and tied their share to a projected growth figure the league disputes.

The sides have rarely been on the same page, so the union's ultimate classification of the offer could be markedly different—specifically, on the rollback issue. While the league's offer may not have contained a flat 24 percent cut, as was the case in 2005, it could mean that players pay more in escrow—which is, effectively, a rollback.

Bettman wouldn't go into detail on how the new escrow system would work, or how the players' revenue share would drop from 57 to 50 percent by Nov. 2. It's impossible for that to happen on its own, especially if the definition of hockey-related revenue remains the same.

About 10 percent of every paycheck is held until the end of the season to ensure the revenue split is in line with the CBA. Players generally get most, not all, of that back, and the issue has long been a problematic one. They started receiving their escrow checks for the 2011-12 season last week.

ESPN's Pierre LeBrun, though, broke some important news—the proposal has a provision to "protect" players from initial salary reductions. That plan, according to TSN's Darren Dreger: Calculate the salary players lose because of the drop, and pay it back to them over time.

How far that protection goes—and how it works at all in concert with such a precipitous drop in the players' HRR share—remains to be seen. Using 2011-12's revenue total ($3.3 billion) as a guideline, players would give back 13 percent. That said, the NHL's revenues have grown year-over-year since the lockout.

Projecting growth is potentially dangerous. That said, five percent is a reasonably conservative benchmark—and adding that the current revenue total, then incorporating the $1.95 billion in total contracts as McKenzie projects, means that players would give back about 11 percent next season.

If revenues grow more, players would give back less—and ultimately, the number would approach past escrow rates; 2011-12's was 8.5 percent. Regardless, in theory, they would get that money back. How and when are unclear, and those are gigantic variables guaranteed to color the players' perception of the offer.

Another important revenue-related point: Teams could carry up to $70.2 million against the cap in the first year. That's the projection they were given before free agency, and the number most used to build their rosters. Three teams—the Boston Bruins ($68.87 million), Minnesota Wild ($68.85 million) and Vancouver Canucks ($67.77 million) are within $3 million of that limit, according to CapGeek. After the first year, teams over the 50-percent cap would presumably have to shed salary—and where they are relative to the cap will not ultimately affect how much money their players receive before the payback/escrow system goes into effect.

Sportsnet's John Shannon had initial details on how the proposal approaches "secondary issues," like player contracts, and those were later fleshed out by TSN. The NHL, unsurprisingly, used its initial offer as a measuring stick for those—and that could be a problem, despite NHLPA special counsel Steve Fehr's assertion last week that a deal could be done in "six hours" if the HRR split was settled. Here are the proposal details:

— Five-year contract limits with a five-percent variance (Previous CBA: No set limit; First NHL offer: five years.) This, in part, is to avoid the long-term, cap-circumventing contracts that are given to star players. Plus, yearly contract values could not fluctuate by more than five percent of the average value, which would set an actual standard for "cap circumvention"—long-term contracts with a significant tail, designed to drive down the salary cap value, are commonplace. Those would now be illegal.

— Free agency at 28 years old, or after eight seasons in the NHL (Previous CBA: 27, seven years; First NHL offer: 30, 10.) This would stop players from hitting the open market for another season of their primes, and allow teams to exert greater control over their players via the restricted free agency process. It should also be noted here that the offer brought back the arbitration process, which wasn't part of the NHL's first offer, and put it in place after the fifth year, not the fourth.

— Two-year entry-level contracts (Previous CBA: three years; First NHL offer, five.) This might be the most interesting part of the NHL's proposal—it can be perceived as a giveback, because it means that players can hit restricted free agency earlier. Because of the five-year contract limit, UFA restrictions and post-Year 5 arbitration stipulation, though, players would have less leverage when it comes time to sign their second contract. More control for owners, less money for players.

— $200 million in revenue sharing (An increase over the previous CBA, less than what the NHLPA proposed.) Few details are available on this, but players are looking for a significant number, and the league downplayed the issue's significance earlier.

— Salaries for NHL players in the AHL count against the cap (Previous CBA: They don't.) This is the Wade Redden provision, so named for $6.5-million Rangers defenseman marooned in the AHL, and it wouldn't impact many clubs—it would, however, stop high-revenue teams from using that option in the future on big-money busts.